NEXT STEPS FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN CINCINNATI

By Jane Anderson

Obtaining effective campaign finance reform at all levels of government is a key to renewing the democratic process in this country.

In Cincinnati, one can trace the steady rise in the costs of City Council campaigns from the 1970s to the present. At the same time, the percentage of people voting in local elections continues to decline, and public opinion surveys reveal that more and more citizens feel that their opinions no longer count in the public decision making process.

The road to campaign finance reform in Cincinnati has been long and arduous. In the spring of 1994, I was involved with the League of Women Voters when it championed the Charter Amendment that gave City Council the authority to establish campaign finance laws. After the voters approved that Amendment, I worked with the League to draw up a series of specific reforms to recommend to City Council. I brought to this assignment my experience and training as a political scientist.

In the fall of 1995, Council adopted a contribution limits ordinance that was very much like the recommendation of the League of Women Voters. That same year, Council also passed an ordinance that placed a limit of $140,000 on what a Council candidate could spend to get elected; a direct challenge to the Buckley versus Valeo Supreme Court decision of 1976 that ruled such limitations were unconstitutional. After the passage of these ordinances, I continued with the League and other groups to monitor the campaign finance process in Cincinnati. Since these ordinances passed by narrow five to four votes in Council, the potential for future opposition seemed great.

Almost immediately, a former Republican Council candidate challenged the ordinance setting a cap on spending as an infringement of free speech. Due to the Buckley Case precedent, a lower federal court ruled in favor of this challenge, and the Judge set aside the ordinance while the Kruse versus the City of Cincinnati Case awaited a review in a higher court. The contributions' limits ordinance, however, was in effect for the 1997 Council Campaign, and overall spending declined for the first time since the 1970s.

For most of 1998, I played a leadership role in an ongoing grassroots effort to preserve the contribution limits ordinance and to prevent Council from dropping its appeal in the Kruse Case. Councilman Charles Winburn vowed to rescind these ordinances, and he continued to put forward recision ordinances throughout the year. An informal coalition of groups that included the League of Women Voters, the Woman's City Club, the Dollars and Democracy Project, Citizens For Civic Renewal, and Citizen Action emerged to advocate for maintaining these ordinances, and I spoke for the coalition on several occasions before Council's Law Committee.

After successfully defending the ordinances on three separate occasions, local reformers experienced two disheartening events in November and December. First, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Kruse Case; ending the fight to preserve the ordinance establishing a cap on a council candidate's spending. Next, Councilman Winburn found the fifth vote he needed to rescind the contribution limits ordinance. Although the reform coalition mounted its most organized effort yet to save this reform, Council, nevertheless, abolished the ordinance in mid-December.

THE NEW REFORM INITIATIVE

1999 has been a rebuilding year in terms of next steps to restore campaign finance reform in city elections. The civic groups that comprise the informal coalition, Councilman Todd Portune, and I have been working to put together a new package of reforms. With my knowledge of city charters and local initiative processes, I was able to serve as a resource to this group as it studied various alternatives. After many months of research, discussions, and meetings, we have come up with an even more comprehensive campaign finance reform initiative than existed in the lost ordinances of 1995. This new reform plan that I helped draft, and housing will be the primary issues on my agenda in 2000. When elected to Council, I will work closely with Councilman Portune and the coalition to lead a successful Charter initiative campaign to translate these proposals into law.

The new initiative that I helped create and now support includes the following reforms. First of all, the initiative would restore contribution limits. The limits would be the same as required in the 1995 ordinance. An individual could contribute $1,000 to a Council candidate, while the limit for a Political Action Committee would be $2,500. A political party could allocate as much as $10,000 to a candidate.

Since placing a mandatory limit on what a candidate can spend in a campaign is currently unconstitutional, we decided when drafting the new initiative to establish a voluntary cap on spending equal to three times the compensation of a council member or the mayor. The benefit for the candidate for Council or for mayor who accepts the cap on spending would be partial public funding for his or her campaign. When looking at public funding models that already exist in other cities such as Tucson, Arizona and New York City, partial public financing appeared to be the most practical approach. Under our proposed initiative, candidates for Council or mayor who accepted the spending limit could qualify for a 2-1 match of public dollars for every private dollar raised up to 67% of the spending limit expenditure.

In order to qualify for partial public financing, a candidate would not only have to accept the cap on spending but also raise an initial amount of campaign funds. A council candidate would have to raise $5,000 with at least 150 contributors, while $10,00 would be necessary for a mayoral candidate from a minimum of 300 contributors.

In terms of public disclosure of campaign contributions, our initiative would restore the extra reporting periods currently not required under state law. Council candidates would be required to report contribution amounts and donors 60 and 19 days before the general election. Candidates for mayor would also be required to file 60 days before the mayoral primary.

The initiative sets penalties and fines for violating the regulations it would establish. A missing element in the 1995 ordinances was an effective vehicle for administering and enforcing campaign finance regulations. This new initiative sets up a special citizen commission to do this important work.

After the November 2nd election, work will go forward on this initiative. We see a need to further refine the proposal, to educate the general public about it, and to begin collecting signatures to place it on the November 2000 ballot.

Campaign finance reform is critical to the renewal of democracy in this country. Citizens will not feel that the democratic process is working for all the people unless we begin to lessen the influence of big money on elections and government in general. Back in 1995, Cincinnati was recognized for taking a leadership role in the grassroots movement to achieve effective campaign finance reform. In 1999, we saw our hard won efforts vanish due to decisions by City Council and the courts. This new initiative will make us leaders again in 2000, and bring the election process and government back to the people.